🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."